IMO if anything is to be labeled "revisionist," it might be Kunstler's own
words. Here's a recent example found on the CNU list:
"The problem with public housing is not how to supply it. This nation has
demonstrated it can provide public housing of varying quality -- but why
the people who occupy it behave so anti-socially.
This prompts some perhaps uncomfortable questions: Are absolutely all
citizens entitled to a nice place to live no matter what -- including
whether or not they make a contribution to their community in the form of
fruitful work or decent behavior? And how much of the quality of a place
is furnished by the social rather than physical infrastructure?
It seems a manifest part of the human condition that people
generally do not get something for nothing. In the case of public housing
in our time there would seem to be a direct relationship between the
quality of behavior and the quality of the domicile.
As I see it, these problems have been greatly aggravated by zoning laws
and the social services industry. Many inner-city slums are, strictly
urbanistically, well-designed but hopelessly dilapidated. But the social
infrastructure is equally dilapidated."
--Jim Kunstler
/First, Kunstler uses terms that are vague and ambiguous, if not demeaning
or victimizing certain groups. He might begin by defining them. They
include:
anti-social behavior
fruitful work
decent behavior
contribution to the community
manifest part of the human condition
quality of behavior
social services industry
Second, one could apply Kunstler's "critique" to persons *not* living in
public housing. For example, couldn't one accuse a resident of Seaside,
for example, of "anti-social behavior"? Of not performing "fruitful work"?
Of not making a "contribution to the community" by, say, being an absentee
landlord?
===================================
Michael Kaplan
Professor of Architecture
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
mkaplan@xxxxxxx
words. Here's a recent example found on the CNU list:
"The problem with public housing is not how to supply it. This nation has
demonstrated it can provide public housing of varying quality -- but why
the people who occupy it behave so anti-socially.
This prompts some perhaps uncomfortable questions: Are absolutely all
citizens entitled to a nice place to live no matter what -- including
whether or not they make a contribution to their community in the form of
fruitful work or decent behavior? And how much of the quality of a place
is furnished by the social rather than physical infrastructure?
It seems a manifest part of the human condition that people
generally do not get something for nothing. In the case of public housing
in our time there would seem to be a direct relationship between the
quality of behavior and the quality of the domicile.
As I see it, these problems have been greatly aggravated by zoning laws
and the social services industry. Many inner-city slums are, strictly
urbanistically, well-designed but hopelessly dilapidated. But the social
infrastructure is equally dilapidated."
--Jim Kunstler
/First, Kunstler uses terms that are vague and ambiguous, if not demeaning
or victimizing certain groups. He might begin by defining them. They
include:
anti-social behavior
fruitful work
decent behavior
contribution to the community
manifest part of the human condition
quality of behavior
social services industry
Second, one could apply Kunstler's "critique" to persons *not* living in
public housing. For example, couldn't one accuse a resident of Seaside,
for example, of "anti-social behavior"? Of not performing "fruitful work"?
Of not making a "contribution to the community" by, say, being an absentee
landlord?
===================================
Michael Kaplan
Professor of Architecture
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
mkaplan@xxxxxxx